-Blessed items only be used by members of the religion...

[Andoriel]

theory then practice tyrion... Thats how world works. And for theory part people who play this game needs to contribute for a better idea, a common ground.
God i find imps dedication to go through with this idea deeply disturbing.

[Tyrion]

Paralysis analysis occurs in this way. We can discuss it all day long but the reality is that we have a scriptor that has to prioritize his life first and script second. It won't work the opposite way. We're going about the discussion now. Boris already said it could be reversed. Lastly, we can have the pre-discussion discussion. But until there is a working prototype for EVERYBODY to see it will be random comments slightly on topic and then eventually devolve into a spammed thread.

[Andoriel]

oh its too late to discuss it now that much i agree with you because there has been a skip of steps here. But before implementing big changes players need to be notified and basis on the idea needs to be discussed. Staff cannot see every angle of effects these changes do, thus player input will bring broader view. After reading player response they should implement whatever they want, and put it to test then modify it as they go...
Emphasis on the BIG changes. Small ones don't need this.

[Tyrion]

oh its too late to discuss it now that much i agree with you because there has been a skip of steps here. But before implementing big changes players need to be notified and basis on the idea needs to be discussed. Staff cannot see every angle of effects these changes do, thus player input will bring broader view. After reading player response they should implement whatever they want, and put it to test then modify it as they go...
Emphasis on the BIG changes. Small ones don't need this.

Fair point.

[Glarundis]

even still, i don't remember old staff doing this? it was their way, and that's it.
atleast now we get to vote and stuff.
that's a huge improvement, even if on this one they decided it maybe a bit before the discussion ended

[Monad]

oh its too late to discuss it now that much i agree with you because there has been a skip of steps here. But before implementing big changes players need to be notified and basis on the idea needs to be discussed. Staff cannot see every angle of effects these changes do, thus player input will bring broader view. After reading player response they should implement whatever they want, and put it to test then modify it as they go...
Emphasis on the BIG changes. Small ones don't need this.

I understand where you're coming from but I have to disagree. You need to able to separate these two type of cases which are fundamentally different:

1) We will happily ask player opinion on issues like the piety changes because there really isn't right or wrong way to do it. It's a matter of opinion, a view depending on the player how they see and prefer it to work like. You can think it like you're driving a car with certain properties, we offer you another car with same properties but different look and color - and you choose another one of those. Result is pretty much same but which you prefer is what counts.

2) Second case is situation like this when there is a issue which is unfair, it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work and unbalances things. It is true that we can't see all the effects when we do the changes, but I dare to claim that asking your opinion beforehand wouldn't really change anything either. That's why we have the test phases as we do now. Also on cases like this which affects other people more than others, the opinions and arguments are very easily based on subjective view, trying to make something to happen or to not happen to make it better for yourself. Whereas we as a staff watch and review the case from objective view where we think the whole shard instead one certain player or group of players. Here you can think it like this: You're driving a car which is tuned to not match the race, in this situation we have to change the car without offering you a chance to pick either of them because the car you were driving was not suitable.

Also remember that all of us current staff have long history on Pangaea as players too so we do know thing or two from players perspective aswell even if we're not currently players. I don't mean to sound like arrogant here but I'm just trying to explain better how it works from our view when we do decisions like this. And you can trust us we don't do hasty decisions. Sometimes we might be wrong of course, but everything we do we discuss on GM forums first if we don't ask your opinion.

[Andoriel]

Thanks for the reply monad. I was more worried about pvm aspect of this change rather then pvp one to begin with that is why i got bit...passionate about it.

[Darian Darkmind]

Lots of pages since the last time I read this topic. Couldn't be arsed to read the last three pages though.

Anyway, I personally don't mind if Tekstone can't help Nox or Telboreans. Even though we are nowadays allowed to help robbers, I'm used to not to so it's not any kind of loss to me. Nox did fine killing and robbing people without religion blesses before so that too doesn't make a difference. So anyone saying I don't like this because of re-creation of Nox and now being unable to use Tekstone is false. I was actually against the whole idea of "alliance" between Tekstone and Nox. Nox has never cared for anyone, Tekstone included.

However, a blessed character out of religion was the death of any priest, even my good old 80 piety priest stood useless against a maxed barbarian with our enemy blesses. This is actually what this is all about. This is why it was changed, to end that "unfair" advantage. But it seems like I'm the only one who doesn't see it "unfair", even when I myself am a priest DOING the blessing, not receiving it. Even when I was the one fighting against blessed barbarians. Now, masano, or someone said you can still use blessed barbarian to fight a priest, as long as the barbarian is in the religion. What you didn't get, my point was that now due to the barbarian being a member of the religion, he also takes my bonuz damage and thus is easily killed by the priest. So, like I said this was a boost to a priest - which yet again, I've nothing against. I just think the old system was good that there were some characters that even I had to run away from.

But also this was a big hit to those who are friends with religions hunting with them. Even if not in the religion itself, doesn't mean they don't have faith in their god and thus should be allowed to use their blesses. After all, that's what priests to, they bless people - even those outside of their own faith.I could never be arsed to hunt with any other character than my priest. The damage and the healing is simply so poor. I once tried to kill a black wisp with my heightened knight, but it simply didn't lead to anywhere. Then along came Borex and killed it for me.

Imo this was a too big nerf for those who actually enjoy hunting. Not that big of a nerf in PvP. Doesn't affect me personally, again, but I do feel for those out there trying to hunt. :D

[Boris]

The whole PvM issue is over the top. If people see no longer use for priests for hunts (in a non-religious groups), they're either drunk, on drugs or mentally challenged.

- Boris

[Johnny Walac]

Can't use blessed weapons? No.

Can use blessed weapons but take religion damage? Yes